Maranatha's clever "I'm Gunna Apply" video
From way back at the top of this thread:
I’ve never seen Glee but am aware of it from a non-viewer (not even once) standpoint.
I doubt there is any more correlation between the MBBC video and “Glee” then there is from a women’s missionary fellowship and “Desperate Housewives” (Which I have also never viewed once!)
This is what you get when you cross Glee with Walmart.First of all about Walmart. It’s one of the world’s great companies that has brought distribution efficiencies and lower costs to customers worldwide! I’m proud to be a shareholder. Pays a nice 2.6% dividend ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=wmt&ql=1] WMT )
I’ve never seen Glee but am aware of it from a non-viewer (not even once) standpoint.
I doubt there is any more correlation between the MBBC video and “Glee” then there is from a women’s missionary fellowship and “Desperate Housewives” (Which I have also never viewed once!)
Sounds like something from Oklahoma! or Music ManNot at all really; but it does sound very like something from the group http://www.acappella.org/acappella/ Acapella , whose CD’s were banned when I went to MBBC in the early 90s.
Anyone who says they can’t see the difference between Marantha’s and Liberty’s videos is just being ridiculous! Perhaps they would also have trouble telling the difference between a BJU orchestra cd and a guns and roses cd.What if the difference between the first two is merely one of degree while the difference between the latter is one of type/kind?
Well, I never knew “sober-minded” meant “no fun.”I don’t think anyone is advocating for excluding fun altogether. It’s when, where, what kind, for what purpose, etc.
First of all about Walmart. It’s one of the world’s great companies that has brought distribution efficiencies and lower costs to customers worldwide!At the cost of purchase options and localized culture.
[DavidO]It’s called the free market. Plus with the Internet and free shipping (Amazon) one can buy anythingFirst of all about Walmart. It’s one of the world’s great companies that has brought distribution efficiencies and lower costs to customers worldwide!At the cost of purchase options and localized culture.
Free Market:
- Free to shop there (or not)
- Free to work there (or not)
- Free to sell to WM (or not)
Well, we’re drifting from the topic—my fault. But I reject the notion that Walmart coupled with Amazon (both of which I patronize regularly) is an equal substitute for a community economy offering unique and diverse goods.
On behalf of the investors, employees, suppliers, and shoppers; I am simply defending a company I am proud to be associated with!
Wal-Mart has over 1.5 million associates worldwide. More than 138 million customers per week shop at Wal-Mart stores worldwide.
Wal-Mart has over 1.5 million associates worldwide. More than 138 million customers per week shop at Wal-Mart stores worldwide.
I don’t think MBBC has drifted. I think it is a great school. I’m OK with the video
And that’s the last I’m gunna say on the subject
And that’s the last I’m gunna say on the subject
[Jim Peet] I don’t think MBBC has drifted.Drifted can mean a lot of things, some more serious than others, but I’d actually agree with this specific statement, the Acappella sound notwithstanding.
if I wunt and applied, would any of these be my Philosophy, Theology, or Bible profs/instructors? Any dept. heads here? (I actually do not know who they are.)
http://www.faithwebsites.com/wsbc/acadmeic excllence.jpg] Who A capture of their own video…I promise.
http://www.faithwebsites.com/wsbc/acadmeic excllence.jpg] Who A capture of their own video…I promise.
SamH
I don’t think it is the presence of levity that is a concern, but the predominance of levity in our culture. Unless it’s entertaining, many (if not most) people simply do not want to read, listen, or watch anything. And if one is trying to convey a message of substance, does the humor serve to further the message, or does it distract from it?
[SamH] if I wunt and applied, would any of these be my Philosophy, Theology, or Bible profs/instructors? Any dept. heads here? (I actually do not know who they are.)
http://www.faithwebsites.com/wsbc/acadmeic excllence.jpg] Who A capture of their own video…I promise.
Maybe! One of the many things I appreciated about many of my professors at Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary was their senses of humor, including Drs. Houghton, Houghton, Hartog, Turk, etc. I’m glad they didn’t take themselves too seriously.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
It was a fun video and there is room for ministries to have fun, believe it or not. And, there is room for people to laugh with the them.
Too make a judgement that a school’s standards are slipping because they produce one clean and humorous is video hyper-judgemental.
Too make a judgement that a school’s standards are slipping because they produce one clean and humorous is video hyper-judgemental.
I don’t have an opinion pro or con regarding the video — just weighing the comments at this time. However, when comments expressing and articulating specific concerns regarding the video are answered simply with “But it’s fun” that makes the arguments in favor of the video less convincing.
Hyper-space
In my stupid little posts, I have specifically not spoken vis-a-vis MBBC’s “standards.” I do understand those concerns. (For context, I am assuming “standards” are defined in light of holiness v. sinfulness). I am however dismayed at how some rather quickly resort to “hyper”-speak when describing someone who may view the video with holiness/sinfulness concerns. Does this mean that even to think in those “standards” terms is not just a bad idea, but possibly unbiblical, or some other category of error? Is it too much a stretch to perceive that “hyper-judgemental” [sic] is meant to draw from Matt. 6, Luke 7 (hence my term “unbiblical”)? If such was not meant, I withdraw it, but wonder what such an inference ultimately would then mean.” That is the context in which we generally see or use that specific technical term—“judgmental.”
But, if that is what was meant, then umm, “Wow.” So, if someone is concerned that this video is or may be somehow a biblically offensive thingie they are themselves biblical violators? Is this what is meant when we say that with “tolerance” apparently comes intolerance? I’m not sure. I would hazard that someone thought my other post to be intolerant. To be sure, my use of language in my longer previous post was meant to be hyperbolic, demonstrative and provocative, hence the pre-vomitus reference, etc. But I meant it to show my disgust about two issues, which are actually one. But more on that at the end. (The terms “glurge” “dog’s breakfast” and “doggerel” had been vying for inclusion in my first philippic, but there were too many Gs and too many “dogs” so I stopped where I did.)
“Hyper-judgemental”ists [sic] take heart. You should at least wonder if there is something morally deficient in the contents and message of the video. That is what Christians do, we examine stuff to see if it passes muster. We do need to do so on biblical grounds, with specific scriptural references or necessary implications/inferences based on doctrine. If you can do so on those bases, then one might hope you would receive a hearing without any “hyper” references.
Surprise!?
This video is what many of us expect of the MBBCs of Christendom. It is what they sometimes are and do now. That is their prerogative—and in granting that I think we are sanctioned to offer critique about what they are and do. And I do hope to do so in a meaningful way. However harsh this all may sound, there are many things MBBC is and does for which I am grateful. But, a few more words, and I will stop assaulting you pixelly.
Worldliness
What is interesting is that some quickly dismiss the notion that this video may/should raise questions of propriety (biblical or otherwise) in some minds. Does such brusqueness or apathy disturb anyone? A thought or two:
A pastor and friend (a seminary instructor and aide to that seminary’s titular leader) http://mpriley.com/?s=worldliness] once wrote on worldliness . He used an example from Richard Weaver: Is it worthwhile and compulsory to investigate the convenience of the use of an automobile for individuals, and automobiles for a society? Or do certain factors necessitate with unquestioned certainty the use of automobiles, even though they carry with them moral complications and danger? (Cars play a large part in human death and incur various other not-insignificant societal costs each year). His contention (if I understand him rightly) is that the Christian of all persons should be willing to subject all areas of life to careful moral examination—especially in those areas as relates to our “culture.” So then, to fail to think critically about the morals of the conveniences of our society and of our culture is then to be worldly. Why? Because only the world assumes there are no moral implications for human ideas and actions. Thus, if someone wants to discuss MBBC’s video and “worldliness” I would begin with that facet of it—separate of what we have traditionally intoned as “standards.”
I posit this: because of the pressures to maintain a school(s), and to grow it(them) numerically, we will likely see a decreasing sobriety/seriousness with a mounting worldliness (as I have discussed above) in “our” institutions. I pray that it will go otherwise, but…well, we’ll see. (There is a passel of information out there to back up my concerns. We fundies might not have responded properly to the increasing worldliness in broader Christianity and Christendom, but the fact that doctrinal and practical slides occurred among them has certainly been documented—that is undeniable.) As a pastor, there is always pressure to be pragmatic—we’re not alone in this struggle.
Seriousness
To dismiss the video as not being serious, but fun is to perhaps miss the point. In light of maintenance and growth of the school, this video is meant to be serious—a serious attempt at marketing to children who hunger for a school that is “cool” and not just “fun.” (Do the “kids” still use that kind of slang? Dunno.) There are other carrots presented; I seem to recall the following proffered as incentive for attending MBBC: “I’m the type of guy who likes success”(to be the Big Cheese as the desk sign said); “I wanna get a real degree”; “all of the new classes I’ll take”; “all the new friends I’ll make”; “while eating my Friday-night-steak”; “not to feel that I’ve been robbed, ‘cuz when I’m done I’ll get a real job”(and not be homeless by videographical inference); “and I’ll feel so satisfied”; and “maybe you’ll find that one to marry.” These are all things that young people (and even we oldies) desire. Most of these were my own impetus for advanced schooling, when I was a black-hearted little pagan God-hater, BTW.
But, what of: God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, slavehood, Lordship, grace, faith, the “Commission,” sunathleo, agonizomai,, to live is Christ, to die is gain—what of “the Faith?”
It is missing.
Ah, you say “I heard ‘…and learn my theology…’, and I think I saw Dr. Oates lip-dubbing ‘…maybe even seminary…’ so—so there you pharisaical cultural fundamentalist curmudgeon! Yeah! Yeah! There was Jesus-stuff, and things like that.”
Well, there you go—ya got me dead to rights. Good on ya then…seriously.
In my stupid little posts, I have specifically not spoken vis-a-vis MBBC’s “standards.” I do understand those concerns. (For context, I am assuming “standards” are defined in light of holiness v. sinfulness). I am however dismayed at how some rather quickly resort to “hyper”-speak when describing someone who may view the video with holiness/sinfulness concerns. Does this mean that even to think in those “standards” terms is not just a bad idea, but possibly unbiblical, or some other category of error? Is it too much a stretch to perceive that “hyper-judgemental” [sic] is meant to draw from Matt. 6, Luke 7 (hence my term “unbiblical”)? If such was not meant, I withdraw it, but wonder what such an inference ultimately would then mean.” That is the context in which we generally see or use that specific technical term—“judgmental.”
But, if that is what was meant, then umm, “Wow.” So, if someone is concerned that this video is or may be somehow a biblically offensive thingie they are themselves biblical violators? Is this what is meant when we say that with “tolerance” apparently comes intolerance? I’m not sure. I would hazard that someone thought my other post to be intolerant. To be sure, my use of language in my longer previous post was meant to be hyperbolic, demonstrative and provocative, hence the pre-vomitus reference, etc. But I meant it to show my disgust about two issues, which are actually one. But more on that at the end. (The terms “glurge” “dog’s breakfast” and “doggerel” had been vying for inclusion in my first philippic, but there were too many Gs and too many “dogs” so I stopped where I did.)
“Hyper-judgemental”ists [sic] take heart. You should at least wonder if there is something morally deficient in the contents and message of the video. That is what Christians do, we examine stuff to see if it passes muster. We do need to do so on biblical grounds, with specific scriptural references or necessary implications/inferences based on doctrine. If you can do so on those bases, then one might hope you would receive a hearing without any “hyper” references.
Surprise!?
This video is what many of us expect of the MBBCs of Christendom. It is what they sometimes are and do now. That is their prerogative—and in granting that I think we are sanctioned to offer critique about what they are and do. And I do hope to do so in a meaningful way. However harsh this all may sound, there are many things MBBC is and does for which I am grateful. But, a few more words, and I will stop assaulting you pixelly.
Worldliness
What is interesting is that some quickly dismiss the notion that this video may/should raise questions of propriety (biblical or otherwise) in some minds. Does such brusqueness or apathy disturb anyone? A thought or two:
A pastor and friend (a seminary instructor and aide to that seminary’s titular leader) http://mpriley.com/?s=worldliness] once wrote on worldliness . He used an example from Richard Weaver: Is it worthwhile and compulsory to investigate the convenience of the use of an automobile for individuals, and automobiles for a society? Or do certain factors necessitate with unquestioned certainty the use of automobiles, even though they carry with them moral complications and danger? (Cars play a large part in human death and incur various other not-insignificant societal costs each year). His contention (if I understand him rightly) is that the Christian of all persons should be willing to subject all areas of life to careful moral examination—especially in those areas as relates to our “culture.” So then, to fail to think critically about the morals of the conveniences of our society and of our culture is then to be worldly. Why? Because only the world assumes there are no moral implications for human ideas and actions. Thus, if someone wants to discuss MBBC’s video and “worldliness” I would begin with that facet of it—separate of what we have traditionally intoned as “standards.”
I posit this: because of the pressures to maintain a school(s), and to grow it(them) numerically, we will likely see a decreasing sobriety/seriousness with a mounting worldliness (as I have discussed above) in “our” institutions. I pray that it will go otherwise, but…well, we’ll see. (There is a passel of information out there to back up my concerns. We fundies might not have responded properly to the increasing worldliness in broader Christianity and Christendom, but the fact that doctrinal and practical slides occurred among them has certainly been documented—that is undeniable.) As a pastor, there is always pressure to be pragmatic—we’re not alone in this struggle.
Seriousness
To dismiss the video as not being serious, but fun is to perhaps miss the point. In light of maintenance and growth of the school, this video is meant to be serious—a serious attempt at marketing to children who hunger for a school that is “cool” and not just “fun.” (Do the “kids” still use that kind of slang? Dunno.) There are other carrots presented; I seem to recall the following proffered as incentive for attending MBBC: “I’m the type of guy who likes success”(to be the Big Cheese as the desk sign said); “I wanna get a real degree”; “all of the new classes I’ll take”; “all the new friends I’ll make”; “while eating my Friday-night-steak”; “not to feel that I’ve been robbed, ‘cuz when I’m done I’ll get a real job”(and not be homeless by videographical inference); “and I’ll feel so satisfied”; and “maybe you’ll find that one to marry.” These are all things that young people (and even we oldies) desire. Most of these were my own impetus for advanced schooling, when I was a black-hearted little pagan God-hater, BTW.
But, what of: God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, slavehood, Lordship, grace, faith, the “Commission,” sunathleo, agonizomai,, to live is Christ, to die is gain—what of “the Faith?”
It is missing.
Ah, you say “I heard ‘…and learn my theology…’, and I think I saw Dr. Oates lip-dubbing ‘…maybe even seminary…’ so—so there you pharisaical cultural fundamentalist curmudgeon! Yeah! Yeah! There was Jesus-stuff, and things like that.”
Well, there you go—ya got me dead to rights. Good on ya then…seriously.
SamH
Thanks, Sam. Especially for this:
But, what of: God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, slavehood, Lordship, grace, faith, the “Commission,” sunathleo, agonizomai„ to live is Christ, to die is gain—what of “the Faith?”The appeal was all wrong. And even my son could see it, but most of SI apparently couldn’t (though they are supposedly older and wiser).
Discussion